Suicide is more common in places with more guns

[farronwolf]

Of course all this recent discussion has little or nothing to do with the original topic.

Can we get back to whether or not it really is more common in places with more guns or whether it is cherry picking the information.

I concede that suicide by gun is more effective than suicide by other means. However, if a country that has limited access to guns has a higher suicide rate than a country which has more access to guns, that starts to debunk the notion from the get go.

From the original post.

This isn’t proof of causality, but many of the complicating factors that would disprove a causal relationship — say, the possibility that people in rural areas are both likelier to own guns and likelier to be depressed — don’t check out; depression actually isn’t higher in rural areas, for example. And the causal mechanism by which guns would increase suicide rates is plausible. Studies suggest that suicide attempts using guns are fatal in the vast majority of cases, while attempts using cuts or poisoning are only fatal 6 to 7 percent of the time…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Wow you’ve just conceded that the citizenry (with inferior “civilian weapons”) needs to be given access to far more “superior weapons”, in order to be capable of defense against government and thus fulfilling the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

No, that would require the assumption that the citizenry needs to rebel against the government - something that is far from proven at this point.

Not to mention that the citizenry may have to defend against the government and pro-government citizenry! Further evidencing that the citizenry require more superior weapons. You’re actually now saying citizenry require greater weaponry than mandated by the 2nd amendment, since they need to defend against the government and pro-government citizenry!

But to the extent that you allow the rebellious citizenry to have greater arms, to that same extent you are allowing the pro-government citizenry to have greater arms. There is no way the 2nd Amendment can ever be twisted into being justified by the need to rebel against the government. It just doesn’t work in a nation with a democratically elected government.

 

[Aquinas11]

that would require the assumption that the citizenry needs to rebel against the government

Quote where in the 2nd amendment it says the right to bear arms is conditioned that citizenry “needs” to rebel against government. Of course that’s false since would mean gun purchases over past few decades are invalid. If you can’t possess a gun until you “need” to rebel against government, by then it’ll be too late. Like saying you don’t “need” health insurance until you get sick.

But to the extent that you allow the rebellious citizenry to have greater arms, to that same extent you are allowing the pro-government citizenry to have greater arms.

No because your argument would require the pro-government citizenry be denied right to bear arms, since their right doesn’t fulfill the purpose of defending against government. Your argument would require a background check to determine if someone is pro-government and then deny them guns.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Quote where in the 2nd amendment it says the right to bear arms is conditioned that citizenry “needs” to rebel against government.

I didn’t say the 2nd amendment said that. People here have justified the 2nd amendment on the “need” to rebel against the government. I am just showing that justification is silly. There may be other justifications, but this isn’t one of them.

No because your argument would require the pro-government citizenry be denied right to bear arms, since their right doesn’t fulfill the purpose of defending against government. Your argument would require a background check to determine if someone is pro-government and then deny them guns.

My argument assumes no such thing. It just assumes that the 2nd Amendment is applied uniformly to everyone without regard to their attitude toward the government. Since the anti-government side was unable to win at the ballot box, it is reasonable to assume that they represent a minority of the citizenry. Even if a minority of the citizenry could somehow overthrow the government, fighting against both the government troops and the half of the population that supports that government, it would be an immoral victory, leading to an even more despotic regime than they thought they were fighting.

 

[Aquinas11]

Top 20 countries in terms of civilian guns owned per 100 and I put suicide rank in bold

1 United States 120.5 34th in suicide
2 Falkland Islands 62.1 No ranking
3 Yemen 52.8 78th in suicide
4 New Caledonia 42.5 No ranking
5 Montenegro 39.1 105th in suicide
6 Serbia 39.1 66th in suicide
7 Canada 34.7 72nd in suicide
8 Uruguay 34.7 19th in suicide
9 Cyprus 34.0 150th in suicide
10 Finland 32.4 32nd in suicide
11 Lebanon 31.9 167th in suicide
12 Iceland 31.7 40th in suicide
13 Bosnia and Herzegovina 31.2 125th in suicide
14 Austria 30.0 59th in suicide
15 North Macedonia 29.8 128th in suicide
16 Liechtenstein 28.8 No ranking
17 Norway 28.8 74th in suicide
18 Malta 28.3 124th in suicide
19 Switzerland 61st in suicide

List of countries by suicide rate - Wikipedia

Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country - Wikipedia

 

[farronwolf]

Not to mention that the citizenry may have to defend against the government and pro-government citizenry! Further evidencing that the citizenry require more superior weapons. You’re actually now saying citizenry require greater weaponry than mandated by the 2nd amendment, since they need to defend against the government and pro-government citizenry!

I want to put my order in for an:

AK57-Uzi-Radar-Lazer-triple barreled-double scoped-heat seeking-shotgun.

And if you don’t know who the Da Yoopers are you won’t get it.

 

[Lobster_Johnson]

Gun rights prevent boating accidents!

Anyone who wants to ban guns simply doesn’t care about responsible boat owners.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Top 20 countries in terms of civilian guns owned per 100 and I put suicide rank in bold

Irrelevant list because it does not control for the many other factors that influence suicide rate, such as culture, economic hardship, etc.

 

[farronwolf]

I didn’t say the 2nd amendment said that. People here have justified the 2nd amendment on the “need” to rebel against the government. I am just showing that justification is silly. There may be other justifications, but this isn’t one of them.

That could be one of the reasons. Don’t know how many folks believe that is the only reason.

The 2A is there for exactly what it says.

A well regulated militia, doesn’t mean regulations as to who or hunting weapons ect. regulated was “standard, or common, well functioning, and effective” firearms to be used in combat when the militia is called up.

being necessary to the security of a free State, means the security of the State and it’s people as well.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, everyone allowed firearms which meet the definition of regulated.

shall not be infringed. the rights of the people outweigh the rights of the gov. in most circumstances, just like free speach, or religion.

 

[Aquinas11]

other factors that influence suicide rate

the thread is whether “suicide is more common in places with more guns”

if its the “other factors” that affect the suicide rate, you’re again conceding guns aren’t the problem

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

other factors that influence suicide rate

the thread is whether “suicide is more common in places with more guns”

if its the “other factors” that affect the suicide rate, you’re again conceding guns aren’t the problem

No, if you read the actual study you will see that they did control for other factors.

 

[Aquinas11]

I didn’t say the 2nd amendment said that. People here have justified…

Ok so it wasn’t a statement grounded in law , just what someone’s opinion which is irrelevant.

I am just showing that justification is silly.

There has been no “showing”, just citing someone’s opinion, which is nothing.

It just assumes that the 2nd Amendment is applied uniformly to everyone without regard to their attitude toward the government.

but the purpose of 2nd amendment requires your argument to mean pro-government citizenry are denied guns, since the purpose of 2nd amendment is to arm the citizen to defend against government. Your argument is that a portion of citizenry are effectively an arm of the government in the event of civil war, thus giving them guns contradicts purpose of 2nd amendment, per your argument

Since the anti-government side was unable to win at the ballot box, it is reasonable to assume that they represent a minority of the citizenry. Even if a minority of the citizenry…

Our elections aren’t determined by pure democracy, we’re a Republic not a Democracy. Even if 100% of citizenry voted to overturn the 2nd amendment, it would be null and void since a Republic guarantees certain rights despite democratic vote

 

[Aquinas11]

Again you’re just conceding non-gun factors affect suicide

 

[LeafByNiggle]

but the purpose of 2nd amendment requires your argument to mean pro-government citizenry are denied guns, since the purpose of 2nd amendment is to arm the citizen to defend against government.

The bolded part above is exactly what you have not proven. The rest just doesn’t make sense.

Your argument is that a portion of citizenry are effectively an arm of the government in the event of civil war…

Only in the sense that they will probably fight against a small rebel army rather than join it.

…thus giving them guns contradicts purpose of 2nd amendment, per your argument

I made no statement about the purpose of the 2nd amendment. I only stated what will happen because of the 2nd amendment. And that is that the right to bear arms will not be infringed. On anybody.

Our elections aren’t determined by pure democracy, we’re a Republic not a Democracy. Even if 100% of citizenry voted to overturn the 2nd amendment, it would be null and void since a Republic guarantees certain rights despite democratic vote

I’m not talking about overturning the 2nd amendment. I’m talking about throwing out the scoundrels that are running the (supposedly) evil and oppressive government. If you can do that through a representational democracy, you don’t have even half of the population with you. And to succeed in a revolution, you are going to need almost everyone to be with you.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Again you’re just conceding non-gun factors affect suicide

Yes, that is obvious. But the point of the study is if you control for those non-gun factors, what remains is a huge gun-factor.

 

[neophyte]

Wikipedia has data for rates of both civilian gun ownership and suicide, listed by country. Copy both data sets to a spreadsheet, sort them by country, and delete countries that don’t have data in both columns. Then chart the data in a scatter plot.

You’ll see absolutely no trend. You’ll see that the USA has by far the highest gun ownership rate, and a suicide rate less than one standard deviation above the mean.

I’d never call this a great analysis, but it certainly supports the proposition that there are much stronger drivers of suicide rates than gun ownership.

I haven’t examined the specific studies referenced in that article, but I’ve examined many that arrived at similar conclusions in the past and they all were flawed. Not gonna bother myself with these.

 

[Nepperhan]

The 2A is there for exactly what it says.

Not exactly. The Heller and McDonald cases were decided on the basis of self-protection not the maintenance of a well-armed militia. Conservatives don’t like to mention it but they were the result of activist judges.

Exactly what the 2nd amendment says (or requires) has been in dispute in the courts for over 100 years. We have freedom of religion but the snake handlers and the chicken chokers sure get their practices curtailed.

 

[farronwolf]

shall not be infringed. the rights of the people outweigh the rights of the gov. in most circumstances, just like free speach, or religion.

I guess you missed this post.

Yes Heller and Mc Donald were cases based on self protection. My point in that post was that the ban, placed by some municipalities, on certain types of guns for the “common” good will not stand.

being necessary to the security of a free State, means the security of the State and it’s people as well.

Whether it is the 2A or any other law on the books. There will forever be challenges to them because people on one side or the other don’t like it for some reason. That is human nature, not a problem with the law.